If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

How about I add another link to this thread as well? I found this journal of a biker who went into Chernobyl herself, a few years ago. It's quite a read, here. She knows a lot about Chernobyl's history herself

I know slash my now wife's family hosted a Belarussian kid (now 19?) on an exchange type summer program to let them have some time out of the background radiation, it seems that northerly winds carried the fallout into southern Belarus where it is now mostly sequestered in the local floura, they found that even 3 months in the USA away from the background radiation was enough to undo 2-3 years of background damage.

It was a disaster. But it's pretty clear that its consequences are limited. Had the power Chernobyl produced been produced by coal power plants instead, there would probably have been more deaths and more disease. They would just have been less visible.

Nuclear power definitely has drawbacks, but even with ridiculously unsafe plants like Chernobyl or Fukushima it's safer than coal. Unless you build a nuclear power plant in the middle of a large city or something.

I learned at your link which show you these are true incident scale i am fully shocked about to read this 4000 people could die and may more which i/you do not estimate.

Well, you may have read it incorrectly - 4000 people are the maximum of people that will die. And that is an estimate. The amount of people that actually will die is statistically indeternimable (which means there is too few of them to actually get an accurate measurement). The main thing is that someone who dies because of the consequences of radiation could have died three years later because of the consequences of smoking - or vice versa.

It's amazing how well the 40 years old Fukushima power plant resisted a gigantic earthquake and a tsunami.

At least when you consider that
1) It was older than Chernobyl in design and construction.
2) The company behind the plant forged safety documentation repeatedly, with scandals about it going back as far as 1976.
3) At the time of construction, they changed the design of the emergency cooling systems without notifying authorities.
4) The plant was only designed to withstand earthquakes of moderate severity; the one that hit Fukushima, Sendai etc. was one of the most severe earthquakes ever recorded.
5) It was only designed to withstand small tsunamis. When in 2008 a report warned that the plant could be hit by much larger tsunamis than expected, they did nothing. This was after an incident in 1991 illustrated that the backup generators were vulnerable to flooding. They responded to that incident by changing some doors, rather than moving the generators from the basement to higher ground. In the actual disaster, the generator rooms were flooded in part via... the doors.

It's almost like they wanted this to happen. Just read the safety history of the plant at Wikipedia.